Inhibiting inappropriate communications between users involving transactions

ABSTRACT

Techniques are described for automatically identifying and inhibiting suspect electronic communications between users, such as for electronic communications that may reflect fraudulent activities by one or more of the users or that are otherwise inappropriate for one or more reasons. In some situations, the communications may relate to transactions in which the users are involved, such as for users that are buyers and sellers of items interacting via one or more electronic marketplaces. The communications may occur via a communication mechanism provided by an electronic marketplace that acts as an intermediary between the sender of a communication and the one or more intended recipients of the communication. The automatic identification of suspect communications that may be inappropriate includes automatically assessing the communications in one or more ways, and identified suspect communications and any associated inappropriate user activities may be inhibited in various ways.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation application of co-pending U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 13/253,850, filed Oct. 5, 2011 and entitled“Inhibiting Inappropriate Communications Between Users InvolvingTransactions,” which is hereby incorporated herein by reference. ThisU.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/253,850 is a continuationapplication of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/555,197, filed Oct.31, 2006 and entitled “Inhibiting Inappropriate Communications BetweenUsers Involving Transactions,” now U.S. Pat. No. 8,050,983, which ishereby incorporated herein by reference.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The following disclosure relates generally to techniques forautomatically inhibiting inappropriate communications between usersengaged in transactions, such as communications that are exchangedbetween users acting as buyers and sellers of items via an intermediarythird-party electronic marketplace and that reflect at least potentiallyfraudulent activities by one or more of the users involved in thecommunications.

BACKGROUND

The Internet comprises a vast number of computers and computer networksthat are interconnected through communication links, with informationbeing exchanged using various services such as electronic mail, FTP, andthe World Wide Web (also referred to as the “Web”). The Web allows aserver computer system (e.g., a Web server providing a Web site) to sendgraphical Web pages of information to a remote client computer system,which the remote client computer system may then display, such as via aWeb browser executing on the client computer system.

In addition to merely providing access to information, the Web hasincreasingly become a medium that is used to search for, shop for andorder items (such as products, services and/or information) that are forpurchase, rent, lease, license, trade, evaluation, sampling,subscription to, etc. In many circumstances, a user can visit the Website of a Web merchant (or a “Web store”) or otherwise interact with anonline merchant or retailer or electronic marketplace that provides oneor more items, such as to view information about the items, give aninstruction to place an order for one or more items, and provideinformation needed to complete the purchase (e.g., payment and shippinginformation). After receiving an order for one or more items, a Webmerchant then fulfills the order by providing the ordered items to theindicated recipient. The items may be products that are deliveredelectronically to a recipient (e.g., music downloaded over theInternet), or through physical distribution channels (e.g., paperbackbooks shipped via a governmental postal service or private commoncarrier). The items may also be services that are provided eitherelectronically (e.g., providing email service) or physically (e.g.,performing cleaning services at the house of the purchaser). The orderfulfillment process typically used by Web merchants for product itemsthat are to be physically provided shares similarities with other itemordering services that ship ordered items (e.g., catalog-based shopping,such as from mail-order companies), such as to deliver ordered itemsfrom one or more physical distribution or fulfillment centers operatedby or on behalf of the Web merchant.

The Web and other communication networks enable various types ofelectronic commerce to occur, including via various types of electronicmarketplaces. Such electronic marketplaces are each typically made up ofnumerous users acting as buyers and sellers of various items (or usersacting as other types of potential providers and acquirers of items fortypes of transactions other than purchases, such as renters and renteesfor rental transactions, etc.). For example, a seller may offer one ormore items to buyers via one or more types of purchase transactions,such as via a fixed-price offer to the first buyer that agrees to paythe price, via an auction to the buyer that offers the highest priceand/or that otherwise satisfies specified criteria, etc. In suchenvironments, buyers and sellers may communicate with each otherregarding transactions for various purposes, such as to seek informationin furtherance of a potential transaction, to place an order for aparticular item as part of an actual transaction, to arrange fordelivery of a previously ordered item, etc. Such communications oftentake place between parties who have no previous familiarity with eachother, and may occur in various ways, such as via email or otherelectronic communication mechanisms provided via an electronicmarketplace, or using communication mechanisms that occur external to anelectronic marketplace.

Although such electronic commerce may provide many benefits, variousproblems may still arise. For example, unscrupulous buyers may attemptto engage in various types of fraudulent activities, such as bysubmitting orders without providing valid payment (e.g., usingfraudulent money orders, stolen credit cards, etc.), attempting toobtain personal information about sellers, etc. Furthermore, such buyersmay perform various types of communications with sellers as part of orto further such fraudulent activities, and also may attempt to usecommunications performed via an electronic marketplace to direct furthercommunications to occur outside the electronic marketplace (e.g., toavoid protections provided by or fees charged by the electronicmarketplace). Communications that reflect or further fraudulentactivities may further be sent from sellers to buyers, such as bysellers attempting to defraud buyers, or by other users that obtainunauthorized access to sellers' accounts on an electronic marketplaceand then impersonate the sellers. If an unscrupulous user obtains accessto a seller's account, the user may gain access to contact information(e.g., email addresses) and other information for buyers with whom theseller has previously interacted, which the user may then use forvarious types of fraudulent activities (e.g., to “phish” for otherconfidential information about the buyers). Thus, various types offraudulent activities may occur between users in electronicmarketplaces, at least some of which are furthered by electroniccommunications between the users.

Thus, it would be beneficial to provide techniques to inhibit fraudulentactivities related to electronic commerce, including by inhibitingelectronic communications that reflect or further such fraudulentactivities, as well as to provide other benefits.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a network diagram illustrating an example of interactionsbetween buyers and sellers via an electronic marketplace.

FIGS. 2A-2H illustrate examples of automatic assessment of electroniccommunications between users involved in transactions.

FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of a system forautomatically identifying and handling suspect electroniccommunications.

FIG. 4 is a flow diagram of an example embodiment of a CommunicationsManager routine.

FIG. 5 is a flow diagram of an example embodiment of a SuspectCommunications Identifier subroutine.

FIG. 6 is a flow diagram of an example embodiment of a SuspectCommunications Handler subroutine.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Techniques are described for automatically identifying and inhibitingsuspect electronic communications that may be inappropriate for one ormore reasons. In at least some embodiments, the techniques are used forcommunications between users engaged in potential and/or actualtransactions, such as to automatically inhibit inappropriate activitiesby one or more of the users involved in the communications. The usersmay, for example, be buyers and sellers of items that are interactingvia one or more electronic marketplaces, and in some embodiments thecommunications may occur via a communication mechanism provided by anelectronic marketplace acting as an intermediary between the sender of acommunication and the one or more intended recipients of thecommunication. The inappropriate activities of the users may in someembodiments and situations include various types of attempted fraudulentactivities, and in some embodiments and situations may include othertypes of inappropriate activities, such as abuse of privileges (e.g., bytaking actions that violate an agreement or restrictions that apply to auser, such as based on sending an excess volume of communications orsending communications with inappropriate content). The automaticidentification of suspect communications that may be inappropriateincludes automatically assessing the communications in one or more ways,as discussed in greater detail below, and identified suspectcommunications and any associated inappropriate user activities may beinhibited in various ways, as is also discussed in greater detail below.Various types of communications between users may also further betracked in at least some embodiments to provide various other types ofcapabilities related to the communications. In at least someembodiments, the described techniques are performed by an embodiment ofan automated Communication Manager system, as discussed below.

As noted above, in at least some embodiments, electronic communicationsbetween users may occur via an intermediary, such as via an electronicmarketplace with which the users interact. While users may be involvedin a variety of types of transactions using various types ofintermediary electronic marketplaces, the following discussion will, forthe sake of simplicity, refer generally to users that are “buyers” and“sellers,” although it will be understood that the illustratedtechniques may similarly be used with other types of users engaged inother types of transactions via other types of electronic marketplacesor other intermediaries, and that the terms “buyer” and “seller” mayinclude users that have not yet completed a purchase/sales transaction(e.g., so as to include potential buyers and sellers that arenegotiating or otherwise considering a potential transaction, or thathave partially completed such a transaction). In such embodiments withbuyer and seller users interacting via an intermediary electronicmarketplace, the communications may be initiated when a buyer or selleracts as a sender of an electronic message or other electroniccommunication (e.g., an email, instant message, text message, automatedtelephone or other voice message, etc.) by submitting the electroniccommunication to the electronic marketplace with an indication of one ormore intended recipients, with the electronic marketplace thenforwarding the electronic communication to the intended recipients ofthe electronic communication on behalf of the sender. In suchsituations, the electronic addresses (e.g., email addresses for emailcommunications) of the users may be protected since the intermediaryelectronic marketplace performs the communication forwarding, such thata sender of a communication may be able to indicate one or more intendedrecipients without having access to their electronic addresses (e.g., byindicating login names or other unique identifiers for the recipients),and such that a recipient of a communication may be allowed to reply tothe communication sender via the intermediary but without having accessto the electronic address of the sender.

In embodiments in which electronic communications are submitted to anintermediary, the forwarding of a communication by the intermediary tosome or all of the intended recipients may be blocked or otherwiseprevented, however, if the communication is determined to be a suspectcommunication. Furthermore, various additional actions may further betaken to inhibit any fraudulent or otherwise inappropriate activitiesassociated with a suspect communication. Unless indicated otherwise,discussions below of blocking or other responses that reflect suspectedfraudulent activities similarly apply in at least some embodiments toother types of inappropriate activities. Alternatively, in otherembodiments, communications may be monitored and identified as suspectwithout blocking suspect communications from being delivered and/orwithout taking additional actions to inhibit potential associatedfraudulent activities, with suspect communications being forwarded tothe intended recipients (e.g., if the communication assessment occursafter the communication has been forwarded to some or all of theintended recipients). In such embodiments, however, the forwardedsuspect communications may optionally be flagged for the intendedrecipients as being suspect or the intended recipients and/or the sendermay otherwise be notified of the identification of the communication asbeing suspect.

Communications to be assessed may be obtained in various ways in variousembodiments. For example, if an electronic marketplace acts as anintermediary for communications between users, the electronicmarketplace may select some or all of the communications to be assessed,with the assessment to be performed by the electronic marketplace or bya third-party system performing the assessment as a service provided tothe electronic marketplace. The selection of communications may beperformed in various ways in various embodiments, including by selectingall communications, selecting only communications that meet specifiedcriteria or do not meet specified criteria (e.g., to excludecommunications that are known to be legitimate, such as if initiated atleast in part by the electronic marketplace, or for communications thatare responses to prior communications assessed as not being suspect),etc. The electronic marketplace may obtain communications from sendersby, for example, providing Web forms in which textual and/or othercontent may be supplied for an electronic communication. For example,such a Web form may be presented to a buyer who desires to send acommunication to a seller, such as to initiate an order for an itemprovided by the seller or to initiate contact with the seller in orderto gather more detailed information about the item or about otherinformation regarding the seller. After the buyer submits thecommunication, it may be forwarded as an email to the seller through useof a standard email interface, which the seller may retrieve using athird-party email client program, or the communication may instead beretained at the electronic marketplace for retrieval by the seller. Theseller may then respond to the buyer in various ways if so desired. Forexample, the communication may be provided with an associated responseaddress that corresponds to the electronic marketplace, but with thecommunication provided so as to include unique information that theelectronic marketplace may use to identify the buyer sender (e.g., aunique ID for the buyer or a unique ID for the original communicationthat may be associated with the buyer). If so, the responsecommunication from the seller will be directed to the electronicmarketplace, and then forwarded to the buyer by the electronicmarketplace as appropriate. Alternatively, in some embodiments, some orall additional communications after a first communication occur “out ofband” without using the electronic marketplace as an intermediary, suchas if the seller is provided with the buyer's email address and may thenrespond to the buyer directly. Communications to be assessed may also beobtained in various other ways in embodiments in which thecommunications do not occur via an intermediary electronic marketplace,such as by obtaining the communications from the senders or recipients(e.g., via client programs executing on computing systems used by thesenders and/or recipients, such as client programs provided to users byan electronic marketplace when the users register as buyers or sellers;by intercepting communications in various ways, such as with theassistance of third-party communication systems that enable thecommunications; etc.).

After a communication is obtained to be assessed, it may beautomatically assessed in various ways, such as based at least in parton the contents of the communication. For example, in some embodimentsthe contents of the communication may be compared to one or morepredefined keywords, such as keywords previously identified ascorresponding to (e.g., statistically correlated with) inappropriatecommunications identified as being associated with fraudulent or otherinappropriate activities and/or corresponding to communicationspreviously identified as not being inappropriate. If so, the presence ina communication being assessed of one or more keywords corresponding toinappropriate communications may indicate a higher likelihood that thecommunication is suspect, while the presence of one or more keywordscorresponding to appropriate communications may indicate a lowerlikelihood that the communication is suspect.

In some embodiments, the contents of a current communication beingassessed may be compared to the contents of prior communications,whether instead of or in addition to using predefined keywords. Forexample, the current communication may be compared to priorcommunications sent by the same user over a predefined prior period oftime, such as if a large number of similar emails from a user reflect anincreased likelihood of fraudulent activity on the part of the user.Alternatively or additionally, the current communication may be comparedto prior communications sent by other users over a predefined priorperiod of time, such as to compare a current communication to priorcommunications identified as being inappropriate in order to increasethe likelihood of the current communication being suspect if the currentcommunication is similar, or to decrease the likelihood if the currentcommunication is similar to prior communications identified as beingappropriate (or if it is not similar to inappropriate priorcommunications). Such comparison to other prior communications fromother senders may further identify similar or identical communicationsbeing sent from multiple senders, such as may reflect that the multiplesenders are actually a single user that is fraudulently impersonatingmultiple different senders, or that may reflect multiple distinct senderusers that are inappropriately working together in collusion. Comparisonbetween various communications may be performed in various ways invarious embodiments, such as on a word-by-word basis, by comparing apredefined number of words at a time, by comparing predefined groupingsof words (e.g., sentences, paragraphs, pages, etc.) at a time, etc.Suspect content of communications (e.g., as reflected in differences inthe content of current communications relative to prior communications)may reflect, for example, unscrupulous buyers that attempt to sendcommunications to various sellers in at attempt to convince them toaccept fraudulent money orders or other fraudulent forms of payment.Such communications may be performed by the actual buyers (e.g., byusers that create new buyer accounts at an electronic marketplace forsuch purposes, typically with inaccurate information about the users)and/or by other users that have obtained unauthorized access to accountsof legitimate buyers. Likewise, an unscrupulous user who has obtainedunauthorized access to a seller's account on the electronic marketplacemay attempt to submit communications with the intent to gain access tobuyers' confidential information, such as financial information (e.g.,credit card and/or bank account numbers) and other personal information.

Another technique for assessing communications to identify suspectcommunications includes monitoring the volume of communications sent bya particular user over a predefined prior period of time, as largenumbers of communications may in some circumstances reflectinappropriate activities other than fraud on the part of thecommunication senders. Such volume-based assessment may be performedinstead of or in addition to one or more fraud assessment techniques.For example, buyers and/or sellers may attempt to send a high volume ofcommunications that are unwanted by the recipients (e.g., “spam”), ormay send communications which attempt to redirect the recipients todifferent marketplace or other Web site. Such communications may be sentby users that have obtained unauthorized access to accounts oflegitimate other users, or by the actual other users. Therefore, anunusually high volume of communications sent by a particular user in arelatively short period of time may indicate that the currentcommunication from the user is suspect. However, some users may also insome situations send large numbers of legitimate communications, such asfor a high-volume seller as part of the normal course of business or aspart of a new promotion. Thus, to assess the volume of recentcommunications submitted by a particular user, the volume may in someembodiments be compared to the volume of communications previouslysubmitted by the same user and/or to the volume of communicationssubmitted by other users of a similar type (e.g., if the user is abuyer, to other buyers with similar purchase habits, or if the user is aseller, to other sellers of similar sales volume or other similarcharacteristics). For example, a buyer user may be limited to at most 20email communications per hour and/or 100 email communications per day,with additional communications beyond those thresholds being treated assuspect. In some embodiments, the volume of communications may insteadbe assessed relative to a predefined volume threshold, such as a singlevolume threshold used for all communications, or differing volumethresholds depending upon one or more characteristics of the senderand/or of the communication. In other embodiments, a volume ofcommunications less than a volume threshold may also indicateinappropriate activity.

In addition, in some embodiments, other information particular to a usersubmitting a communication may be used in assessing whether thecommunication is suspect. For example, prior activities of a user may beused as part of assessing whether a communication from a user issuspect, such as the length of time that the user has been registeredwith the marketplace and/or a number of prior transactions engaged in bya user. As one example, communications submitted by a new user may bemore likely to be suspect than communications submitted by a user with alonger history of involvement with the marketplace. In addition, in someembodiments information specific to one or more intended recipient usersfor a communication may be used in assessing whether the communicationis suspect.

In some embodiments, the assessment of a communication includesgenerating a fraud assessment score and/or other inappropriatenessassessment score for the communication, and then determining that thecommunication is suspect if the generated assessment score(s) meetand/or exceed a predefined threshold. The fraud assessment score may begenerated in various ways, such as based on using one or more of thepreviously described assessment techniques. For example, one of morefraud assessment tests may be applied to the communication, with eachfraud assessment test using one or more of the previously discussedassessment techniques. If so, the results of the one or more fraudassessment tests may be aggregated in various ways to produce the fraudassessment score. For example, each fraud assessment test may produce anindividual test score, and the individual test scores may be combined ina weighted manner by using a weight assigned to each fraud assessmenttest that is applied. In addition, a fraudulence threshold to use may bedetermined in various ways, including by using a single predefinedfraudulence threshold for all communications, or by selecting one ofmultiple predefined or otherwise generated fraudulence threshold for acommunication based on information about the communication (e.g., in amanner similar to that previously discussed with respect to volume-basedthresholds). Like volume thresholds, fraudulence thresholds may beuniform for all users and communications, or may differ depending uponone or more characteristics of the user submitting the communicationand/or upon one or more characteristics of the communication itself.

Once a communication has been assessed as being suspect, various typesof actions may be taken in various embodiments to inhibit the suspectcommunication and/or any associated fraudulent or otherwiseinappropriate activities by the communication sender or others. Forexample, in some embodiments a suspect communication may be permanentlyblocked so as to prevent the communication from being forwarded orotherwise delivered to one or more of the intended recipients. In someembodiments, the forwarding of a suspect communication may first bedelayed in order to allow additional data to be gathered to assist inassessing the communication. For example, if one or more volume-basedassessment tests and/or tests to assess similarity of a currentcommunication to other communications are in use, the delay may be usedto obtain additional communications to which the current communicationwill be compared at a future time. In some embodiments, upon receipt ofa suspect communication from a sender that is directed to one or moreintended recipients, the Communications Manager system sends aconfirmation email or other communication to the sender. During thedelay for the suspect communication, the additional information thatbecomes available regarding the communication may include adetermination of whether the confirmation communication is received bythe sender, such as based on whether the sent confirmation communicationis returned as undeliverable (which would typically indicate an invaliddestination email address or other communication address for thesender). An invalid sender communication address may provide furthersupport that the communication being delayed is suspect. Furthermore, insome embodiments the delay may be performed for some or all receivedcommunications even if the communications have not being identified asbeing suspect at the time of the delay, such as to gather additionaldelay-related information for all received communications as part of theassessment process. In some embodiments, a suspect communication may beautomatically modified (e.g., to remove content that contributes to thecommunication being suspect and/or that introduces security or otherrisks), and the modified version of the communication may be forwardedto one or more of the intended recipients for the suspect communication.The user submitting the communication may in some embodiments be advisedthat the communication was modified before forwarding. Furthermore, ifthe user is advised in advance of the communication modification, theuser may in some embodiments be presented with an opportunity to choosebetween approving or accepting the offered modification to be sent orinstead canceling the suspect communication. In addition, when a suspectcommunication is blocked, the sending user may in some embodiment benotified that the communication was blocked, while in other embodimentsthe sender may not receive any notification or may be sent aconfirmation that falsely indicates that the communication was forwardedto the intended recipient (e.g., so that a user engaged in fraudulentactivities will not be aware that his/her fraudulent activities havebeen detected, and thus possibly attempt to modify the fraudulentactivities to avoid further detection).

In addition, additional actions may be taken in some embodiments andsituations, such as to freeze or shutdown a user account from which oneor more suspect communications have been sent (e.g., for a new useraccount, an account that is believed to have been compromised byunauthorized access, etc.), such as permanently or until assurances arereceived that the account has not been compromised. For example,unexplained changes in activities for a particular user may indicatethat the user's account has been compromised. Furthermore, in someembodiments, additional activities may be taken, such as notifyingrecipients of prior communications from a user that is identified asbeing potentially engaged in fraudulent activities in order to warn ofthe potential fraud, and further inhibiting additional inappropriateactivities by the user (e.g., by contacting legal authorities, byinteracting with a service provider or other electronic communicationservice used by the user, etc.).

In addition, information about previously received communications may bestored in some embodiments for various purposes. First, priorcommunications may provide a basis for comparison with currentcommunications, as previously discussed. Second, prior communicationssent between buyers and sellers may provide information that is of usein resolving disputes between the buyers and sellers, such as to enforceguarantees and other promises. Third, an electronic marketplace may useprior communications to track a variety of statistics relating to theuser who submitted them. For instance, a seller's level ofresponsiveness may be tracked based on the length of time between theplacement of an order and acknowledgement of the order, or the length oftime to respond to a buyer's complaint. As another example, the numberof times that a buyer lodges complaints against various sellers may alsobe determined. A variety of additional uses may be made of previouslyreceived and/or assessed communications.

For illustrative purposes, some embodiments are discussed below in whichparticular types of electronic communications are automatically assessedin particular ways, and in which communications determined to be suspectare automatically handled in various ways. However, it will beappreciated that the invention is not limited to the details of theseexample embodiments, and that the described techniques may be used in awide variety of other situations, including with communications sent incontexts other than via an electronic marketplace.

FIG. 1 illustrates an example of interactions between buyers and sellersvia an electronic marketplace 111, and of an embodiment of aCommunications Manager system 110 that automatically identifies andinhibits suspect electronic communications between the buyers andsellers. In particular, various buyers 102 and 104 interact with theelectronic marketplace 111 for the purpose of shopping for and/orordering product and/or service items from various sellers 106 and 108.In this embodiment, the electronic marketplace acts as an intermediaryfor the communications between the buyers and sellers, and theCommunications Manager system is operated by the electronic marketplaceto assess the communications, although in other embodiments theCommunications Manager system may operate separately from the electronicmarketplace and the assessed communications may occur without theelectronic marketplace acting as an intermediary for the communications.

As one example of possible interactions, buyer 102 may desire to placean order from seller 106 for one or more items offered by seller 106 orto contact seller 106 with one or more queries related to such items.The electronic marketplace in this example provides capabilities (notshown) for buyer 102 to send communications to seller 106, although inother embodiments such capabilities may be provided by theCommunications Manager system and/or one or more external communicationsystems. Buyer 102 then submits a communication 112 intended for seller106, which is forwarded to the Communications Manager system 110. IfCommunications Manager 110 determines that communication 112 is notsuspect, Communications Manager 110 directs that communication 112 beforwarded 114 to seller 106. On the other hand, if CommunicationsManager 110 determines that communication 112 is a suspectcommunication, communication 112 may be blocked from being forwarded toseller 106 and/or may be forwarded after being modified byCommunications Manager 110.

In this example, seller 106 then initiates a response to thecommunication 112 from buyer 102. In some embodiments, seller 106 may beallowed to respond directly to buyer 102 by sending one or morecommunications 116 without using the electronic marketplace as anintermediary, and if so Communication Manager 110 may not assesscommunication(s) 116. Similarly, buyer 102 may be allowed to sendsubsequent related communications (e.g., responses) directly to seller106 by sending one or more communications 118 without using theelectronic marketplace as an intermediary, and Communication Manager 110may similarly not assess the communication(s) 118. In other embodiments,some or all additional communications after communication 112 may occurusing the electronic marketplace as an intermediary and withCommunication Manager 110 assessing those additional communications. Forexample, seller 106 may instead respond to buyer 102 by sendingcommunication 120 intended for buyer 102, which is assessed byCommunications Manager 110 and forwarded 122 to buyer 102 ifcommunication 120 is not determined to be suspect. Alternatively, ifCommunications Manager 110 determines that communication 120 is suspect,communication 120 either may not be forwarded to buyer 102 or may beforwarded after being modified by Communications Manager 110.

In addition, rather than buyer 102 initiating a first communication asin the example above, seller 106 may instead initiate a firstcommunication with buyer 102 (not shown) via the electronic marketplace,which Communications Manager 110 would receive and assess as describedabove. Additional communications between the buyer and seller may thenoccur as described above.

Regardless of who initiates the first communication, if thecommunication(s) result in an order being placed, seller 106 may thenship 124 an ordered product item to the buyer 102 via one of variousphysical distribution mechanisms, or may otherwise provide electronicproduct items or service items to the buyer or other designatedrecipient (not shown). While not illustrated here, the CommunicationsManager system 110 may further assess a variety of other types ofcommunications, including communications between buyers and buyers,communications between sellers and sellers, communications from and/orto the electronic marketplace, communications from and/or to otherexternal parties that are not buyers or sellers, etc. In addition, avariety of other types of interactions may occur between users of theelectronic marketplace and/or external parties as part of regularoperation of the electronic marketplace.

FIGS. 2A-2H illustrates examples of automatic assessment of electroniccommunications between users involved in potential and/or actual itemtransactions, such as communications that may occur between buyers 102and 104 and sellers 106 and 108 of FIG. 1. The assessment of thecommunications may be performed by, for example, the CommunicationsManager 110 of FIG. 1.

For example, FIG. 2A illustrates an example of information that may beprovided to a user who is a potential buyer customer of a Web storeelectronic marketplace, such as via a Web page provided to a clientcomputing system of the user for display to the user. In this example,the Web page is displayed after the user has selected a particularproduct item of interest, but before placing an order for the selectedproduct.

In this example, the displayed information includes an indication of theselected product 205 (which is a book in this example), entries 210a-210 c indicative of sellers offering the selected product, andaggregate pricing information 245 related to the selected product. Theentry 210 for each seller includes a price 215 at which the seller isoffering the selected product, a condition 220 of the selected productoffered by the seller, information 225 about the seller, and information230 regarding the seller's offer of the selected product. In addition,each entry includes two user-selectable controls 235 and 240 in thisexample, including an “Add to Cart” control 235 to select the item for apossible future order. The user may also select the “Contact thisseller” control 240 if the user desires to initiate an electroniccommunication with the seller.

In this example, the user selects the “Contact this seller” control 240c in order to initiate contact with seller Bob_Smith, who in thisexample offers a new copy of Book 1 priced at $12.45. After the userselects the “Contact this seller” control 240 c, the Web pageillustrated in FIG. 2B is provided to the user to allow the user tospecify the electronic communication to the seller, which in thisexample is an email. While not illustrated here, in some embodiments theuser may be asked to login to the user's marketplace account if notalready logged in, such as to enable identification of the user so thatthe electronic marketplace may enable responses back to the user. TheWeb page illustrated in FIG. 2B includes a “To” field 245, “From” field250, “Item” field 255, “Subject” field 260, user-editable text box 265,“Send” user-selectable control 270, and “Cancel” user-selectable control275. Although not illustrated in FIG. 2B, in some embodiments auser-selectable control may also be displayed to allow the user toeither authorize release of the user's email address to the recipient(s)of the communication, or to prevent such access to the user's emailaddress. In this example, the “To” field 245 and “Item” field 255 may beautomatically pre-populated using information from the user's selectionin FIG. 2A, and the “From” field 250 may be automatically pre-populatedbased on the information associated with the user's marketplace account.In other embodiments, the “From” field may not be displayed, or mayinclude an automatically generated email address that will direct aresponse communication back to the electronic marketplace for forwardingto the user. Furthermore, in some embodiments, the contents of the“From” field displayed to the sender may be different than the contentsof the “From” field displayed to a recipient after the communication issent. For example, the sender's actual email address may be displayed tothe sender as part of FIG. 2B, but a distinct automatically generatedunique email address for the sender and/or for the current communication(or group of related communications) may be used to replace the sender'sactual email address before the communication is delivered or otherwisemade available to a recipient. Furthermore, in some embodiments, eachdistinct recipient for a communication may be provided a distinctautomatically generated email address for the sender, such as tofacilitate distinct tracking of responses to the sender from the variousrecipients. In addition, at least some automatically generated emailaddresses may in some embodiments be valid for only limited times (e.g.,a particular period of time; a certain number of communications; a groupof related communications, such as an initial communication and anyresponses back and forth; etc.), so that later attempted fraudulentactivities regarding such an automatically generated email address maybe inhibited (e.g., if an unscrupulous user later obtains unauthorizedaccess to a user's account and attempts to send communications to otherusers with whom the user previously communicated). In some embodiments,the determination as to whether to use an automatically generated emailaddress or the sender's actual email address in a communication providedto a recipient may be based at least in part on a selection made by theuser regarding whether to make available or block the sender's actualemail address, and/or based on policies and configuration of theCommunication Manager system (e.g., by using automatically generatedemail addresses to ensure that at least some types of communicationsoccur via the electronic marketplace as an intermediary). In thisexample, the user specifies a subject in “Subject” field 260, andspecifies the contents of the communication intended for the seller intext box 265, with example contents shown in FIG. 2B. When the user isready to submit the communication, the user selects “Send” control 270.On the other hand, if the user wants to cancel submission of thecommunication, the user selects “Cancel” control 275. In this example,the user submits the communication shown on July 31 at 2:09 a.m. Thecommunication specified in FIG. 2B is then provided to an embodiment ofthe Communications Manager system to assess the communication before itis made available to the intended seller recipient (Bob_Smith in thisexample) to determine whether it is a suspect communication.

As previously noted, in some embodiments the Communication Managersystem uses one or more fraud assessment tests that assess the presence(or absence) of predefined keywords. FIG. 2C illustrates an example ofvarious predefined keywords that are used in this example embodiment,with seven example keywords being shown that each have a correspondingkeyword score. In this example, a higher keyword score is moreindicative of a suspect communication than a lower keyword score, with anegative keyword score indicating a keyword associated with appropriatecommunications. It will be appreciated that the number of keywords usedmay be significantly higher in actual embodiments, and that keywordscores may not be used or may have other forms. In this example, thecontents from text box 265 and the information in the “Subject” field260 of the communication submitted in FIG. 2B are compared to the listof keywords in FIG. 2C, although in other embodiments only the text boxcontents may be assessed and/or additional associated information mayfurther be assessed. In this example, the keywords “money order”,ForeignCountryX, and “payment” are all found in the communicationsubmitted in FIG. 2B, resulting in a combined keyword score of 179. Thecombined keyword score may then be used as at least part of assessingwhether the communication is suspect, as discussed more fully below. Inthis example, the terms “ForeignCountryX” and “ForeignCountryY” eachrepresent a particular foreign country (not specified), such ascountries from which fraudulent communications and fraudulent activitiesare common.

As previously noted, in some embodiments and situations, a communicationthat is identified as being suspect may be modified to removeinappropriate content, and then the modified communication may beforwarded to some or all of the intended recipients. For example, withrespect to the example communication illustrated in FIG. 2B, thesubmitted communication may be modified by, for example, deleting thesentence containing the keywords “money orders” and ForeignCountryX, orinstead by deleting only those keywords or by deleting the entireparagraph. Furthermore, the email address in the second paragraph mayalternatively or additionally be deleted, such as due to being adisallowed form of contact information that may indicate that the senderis attempting to circumvent the use of the electronic marketplace as anintermediary for the communications. The email address and/or othertypes of contact information (e.g., email addresses) may beautomatically identified in various ways, such as using patternmatching, and their presence may further be used in some embodiments asanother factor related to whether a communication is assessed as beingsuspect. As other examples of modifying suspect communications, themodification may include deleting HTML code and/or other types ofdisallowed information (e.g., scripts and executable code, images,HTML-based and other user-selectable links, references to causeclient-side retrieval of information when the communication isdisplayed, etc.). Furthermore, in at least some embodiments the presenceof such disallowed types of information may be used as other factorsrelated to whether communications are assessed as suspect.

In some embodiments, the Communication Manager system uses one or morefraud assessment tests that compare information for the communication toinformation for one or more prior communications. FIG. 2D illustratesone example of such a prior communication (referred to here as priorcommunication #1) to which the current communication of FIG. 2B may becompared. As shown in FIG. 2D, prior communication #1 was sent from thesame user (i.e., “A. Customer”) who submitted the current communication,and in fact the text of prior communication #1 is identical to the firstparagraph of the current communication, although the intended recipientof the prior communication was Seller Ted while the intended recipientof the current communication is Bob_Smith. Prior communication #1 wassent four days previously (i.e., on July 27 versus July 31 for thecurrent communication) and at almost the same time of day (i.e., 2:11a.m. versus 2:09 a.m. for the current communication). In this example,the Communications Manager system may combine these various factors(along with possible others) to compute a similarity score of 100 forprior communication #1, which indicates a high degree of similarity. Asthis example demonstrates, many factors combine to form a similarityscore. For example, similarities in the content of the communicationtext, the identity of the user who submitted the communication, theidentity of the intended recipient, the date submitted, the time-of-daysubmitted may be used, as well as various other bases in otherembodiments.

FIG. 2E illustrates another example prior communication (referred to asprior communication #2) to which the current communication of FIG. 2Bmay additionally or alternatively be compared. In this example, thesender and intended recipient of prior communication #2 are differentfrom those of the current communication. However, the subject is thesame and both contain the keyword “money order.” Also, bothcommunications were submitted at times-of-day that are at least slightlysimilar (i.e., 3:59 a.m. versus 2:09 a.m. for the currentcommunication). In this example, the Communications Manager systemcombines these factors (along with possible others) to compute asimilarity score of 72 in this example, which indicates a lower degreeof similarity with the current communication than the degree ofsimilarity between the current communication and prior communication #1.FIG. 2F illustrates another example prior communication (referred to asprior communication #3) to which the current communication of FIG. 2Bmay additionally or alternatively be compared. In this example, thesender, intended recipient, subject, and time-of-day are different fromthose of the current communication, and the Communications Managersystem combines these factors (along with possible others) to compute asimilarity score of 9 in this example, indicating a low degree ofsimilarity with the current communication. It will be appreciated thatsimilarity scores may be computed in various ways (e.g., in a weightedmanner with varying weights for each of the similarity factorsconsidered), and may have various scales and forms.

In addition to computing similarity scores between a currentcommunication and one or more prior communications, some embodiments ofthe Communications Manager system may further consider whether the priorcommunications were found to be suspect (e.g., assessed as suspectand/or confirmed as being inappropriate). For example, a high similarityscore with prior communication #1 may be sufficient to determine thatthe current communication is suspect if prior communication #1 was foundto be suspect, but may not be sufficient by itself if priorcommunication #1 was not found to be suspect. Additional detailsregarding assessments of communications are included below.

FIGS. 2G and 2H illustrate examples of a buyer and seller communicatingwith one another through use of Communication Manager 110. In thisexample, Mary Smith's prior communication #3 (illustrated in FIG. 2F)was not found suspect, and thus was forwarded to its intended recipientSeller_Ted. FIG. 2G illustrates Seller_Ted's response to Mary Smith. Inthis example embodiment, the forwarded email includes a substitutedautomatically generated email address 280 for Mary Smith that is aunique marketplace identifier to enable Seller_Ted's response to bedirected to her through the electronic marketplace and without divulgingher personal email address. In some embodiments, Seller_Ted receivesMary Smith's original communication (prior communication #3) and submitshis response using a standard email program. In other embodiments,Seller_Ted receives prior communication #3 by logging onto hismarketplace account, in which case he may submit his response via a Webform similar to that of FIG. 2B. In some embodiments, the CommunicationsManager system first assesses the response in FIG. 2G to determinewhether it is a suspect communication before forwarding it to itsintended recipient, and in this example the response is forwarded toMary Smith after being determined to not be suspect.

FIG. 2H next illustrates a response of Mary Smith to Seller_Ted'sresponse. Similar to FIG. 2G, Seller_Ted's actual email address isreplaced with a unique marketplace identifier 285 for use by Seller Tedduring his communications with Mary Smith so that a response may bedirected to him through the electronic marketplace without divulging hispersonal email address. As previously noted, in some embodiments uniquemarketplace identifiers may expire after a period of time, while inother embodiments they may be permanently valid. Similar to FIG. 2G,Mary Smith may send this response through a standard email program orwhile logged onto her marketplace account.

Some embodiments of the Communications Manager system may providefurther advantages to assessing communications to identify suspectcommunications. As noted above, privacy is provided when uniqueidentifiers are provided rather than email addresses. Additionally, insome embodiments, records of the communications between buyers andsellers may be stored for various useful purposes. First, priorcommunications provide a basis for comparison with currentcommunications, as described above in relation to FIGS. 2D-2F. Second,prior communications sent between buyers and sellers may be used asevidence when resolving disputes between the parties. Third, theelectronic marketplace may use monitored communications to track avariety of statistics relating to the buyer and/or the seller. Fourth,if a user is not responding in a timely manner and/or other appropriatemanner, the system may automatically take corrective action, such as toescalate the problem to an appropriate human representative of thesystem or human associated with the user so that the problem iscorrected.

In the example of FIGS. 2F-2H, for instance, the buyer usescommunication #3 to request that the seller delay shipping the orderedproduct to a more convenient time for her. The seller responds the nextafternoon regarding his willingness to honor the buyer's request andasks for clarification in communication #3b of FIG. 2G. The buyerresponds a few hours later to provide the requested clarification incommunication #3c of FIG. 2H. In embodiments in which indication of thissequence of communications is stored, various benefits may be providedfor both the buyer and seller. For instance, if the buyer latercomplains to the marketplace that she did not receive her orderedproduct for over six weeks, the dispute can be easily resolved byreviewing the stored communications to identify that the delay was atthe request of the buyer. Likewise, if the seller does not honor hispromise to delay shipment, the buyer can lodge a valid complaint againsthim, and the marketplace host will be able to verify that he agreed notto ship the product until the specified time.

Various statistics may also be computed from such communications. Forinstance, Seller_Ted responded to Mary Smith's request within 24 hours,which may be reflected as part of a “timeliness of responses” statisticor other statistics maintained for sellers. Likewise, the fact thatSeller_Ted readily agreed to Mary's request may increase his “generalreputation” or other statistics. On the other hand, if Seller_Ted has astatistic for “timeliness of shipping ordered products”, the record ofcommunications exchanged between he and Mary may be used to prevent herdelayed shipment from lowering his statistic since the buyer requestedthe delay. Such monitored communications may similarly provide a varietyof additional benefits.

FIG. 3 illustrates a server computing system 300 suitable for executingan embodiment of a Communications Manager system, as well as variousclient computing systems 350 and other computers 370. The servercomputing system 300 includes a CPU 305, various I/O components 310,storage 320, and memory 330. The illustrated I/O components include adisplay 311, a network connection 312, a computer-readable media drive313, and various other I/O devices 315 (e.g., a mouse, a keyboard,speakers, etc.).

A Communications Manager system embodiment 340 is executing in memory330, such as to automatically identify and inhibit suspect electroniccommunications. In the illustrated embodiment, an optional electronicmarketplace 335 is also executing in memory 330, with the CommunicationsManager system interacting with the electronic marketplace to obtaincommunications to be assessed, although in other embodiments one or moresuch electronic marketplaces may instead execute remotely (e.g., on oneof the other computing systems 370) and interact with the system 340over the network 380 (e.g., the Internet, or a private communicationsnetwork). Alternatively, the Communications Manager system may in someembodiments support one or more other types of systems that havecommunications to be assessed, or some or all of the system 340components and functionality may instead be integrated as part of aparticular electronic marketplace to facilitate the operation of thatelectronic marketplace. As part of its operation, the electronicmarketplace 335 may access and use a variety of types of information inan optional electronic marketplace information database (“db”) datastructure 329 on storage 320 to assist its operation, such asinformation about items available to be ordered, about users who arecustomers (e.g., preferences, payment information, shipping addresses,etc.), about orders that have been placed and current status offulfillment of those orders, etc.

In the illustrated embodiment, buyer and seller users of various clientcomputing systems 350 interact with the electronic marketplace in orderto buy and sell items, such as by using Web browsers 358 executing inmemory 357 of the client systems. As previously discussed, the users mayfurther initiate and receive various communications based oninteractions with the electronic marketplace, such as communicationsrelated to potential or actual transactions involving items. Thecommunications may occur via use of the Web browsers 358 and/or viaother email client programs 359 (or other electronic communicationprograms, not shown) executing in memory 357 of the client systems. Someor all such electronic communications are then provided by theelectronic marketplace to the Communication Manager system forassessment.

In the illustrated embodiment, the Communication Manager system 340includes a Suspect Communications Identifier component 342, a SuspectCommunications Handler component 344, and a User Interaction Managercomponent 346. The Suspect Communications Identifier component 342assesses received communications to determine whether they are suspect,as described in greater detail elsewhere. As part of the assessment, thecomponent 342 may use various assessment information from an assessmentinformation database data structure 323 on storage 320, such as fraudassessment tests, other inappropriateness tests, assessment scoring andweight information, fraudulence thresholds, etc. The component 342 mayin some embodiments and situations use information about priorcommunications from a prior communications database 321 on storage 320,such as when comparing a current communication to one or more priorcommunications. When communications are received to be assessed,information about some or all such communications may further be storedin the database 321 for later use, and may in some embodiments beautomatically analyzed (e.g., periodically) to identify information tobe used in later assessment activities (e.g., to identify keywords andother content associated with suspect communications and/or withnon-suspect legitimate communications).

After the Suspect Communications Identifier component 342 determinesthat an assessed communication is suspect, the Suspect CommunicationsHandler component 344 takes one or more actions to prevent the suspectcommunication from being made available to the intended recipients, andmay further take additional actions to further inhibit fraudulentactivities related to the suspect communication. As one example, theSuspect Communications Handler component 344 may block a suspectcommunication from being provided to some or all intended recipients, orin some situations may modify a suspect communication to removeinappropriate contents. Additional details related to such actions aredescribed elsewhere.

An optional User Interaction Manager component 346 may perform variousinteractions with users in various situations, such as to sendconfirmation messages to user who send communications to indicate whenthe communications are forwarded to intended recipients. In someembodiments, for example, the component 346 may send such confirmationmessages when communications are identified as suspect and blocked frombeing forwarded, such as to prevent users who are sending inappropriatecommunications from realizing that their communications have beenidentified as suspect. As described elsewhere, in some embodiments suchconfirmation messages may be sent to senders at least in part to testthe validity of the senders' email addresses or other electronic contactinformation.

Functionality of the Communications Manager system may be accessed invarious ways in various embodiments. As indicated above, in someembodiments the Communications Manager system interacts with one or moreelectronic marketplaces as part of assessing communications. In otherembodiments, a user may interact directly with the CommunicationsManager system for various purposes, such as for buyers and/or sellersto receive and submit communications and to provide feedback (e.g.,acceptance and rejection of proposed modifications), or foradministrative users to monitor performance of the system. As noted,some users may interact with Communications Manager system via remoteclient computing devices, while other users may have physical access tothe server computing system 300, and if so can interact with the variousI/O devices 310 to provide and/or receive information. Informationprovided to users of client computer systems can be presented to thoseusers on appropriate I/O devices 354 of those systems. The clientcomputer systems and/or server computing system 300 may also interactwith other computing systems 370 for various other purposes.

It will be appreciated that the illustrated computing systems are merelyillustrative and are not intended to limit the scope of the presentinvention. Computing system 300 may instead include multiple interactingcomputing systems or devices, and may be connected to other devices thatare not illustrated, including through one or more networks such as theInternet, via the Web, or via private networks (e.g., mobilecommunication networks, etc). More generally, a “client” or “server”system may comprise any combination of hardware or software that caninteract in the indicated manners, including (without limitation)desktop or other computers, network devices, Internet appliances, PDAs,cellphones, wireless phones, pagers, electronic organizers,television-based systems (e.g., using set-top boxes and/orpersonal/digital video recorders), and various other consumer productsthat include inter-communication capabilities. In addition, thefunctionality provided by the illustrated Communications Manager systemcomponents may in some embodiments be combined in fewer components ordistributed in additional components, and the functionality of some ofthe illustrated components may not be provided and/or other additionalfunctionality may be available.

It will also be appreciated that, while various items are illustrated asbeing stored in memory or on storage while being used, these items orportions of them may be transferred between memory and other storagedevices for purposes of memory management and data integrity.Alternatively, in other embodiments some or all of the softwarecomponents may execute in memory on another device and communicate withthe illustrated computing system via inter-computer communication. Someor all of the Communications Manager system components and/or datastructures may also be stored (e.g., as software instructions orstructured data) on a computer-readable medium, such as a hard disk, amemory, a network, or a portable media article (e.g., a DVD or flashmemory devices) to be read by an appropriate drive or via an appropriateconnection. The Communications Manager system components and datastructures may also be transmitted as generated data signals (e.g., bybeing encoded in a carrier wave or otherwise included as part of ananalog or digital propagated signal) on a variety of computer-readabletransmission mediums, including wireless-based and wired/cable-basedmediums, and can take a variety of forms (e.g., as part of a single ormultiplexed analog signal, or as multiple discrete digital packets orframes). Such computer program products may also take other forms inother embodiments. Accordingly, the described techniques may bepracticed with other computer system configurations.

FIG. 4 is a flow diagram of an embodiment of a Communications Managerroutine 400. The routine may be provided by, for example, execution ofan embodiment of the Communications Manager system 110 of FIG. 1 and/orof the Communications Manager system 340 of FIG. 3. In the illustratedembodiment, the routine operates independently of one or more electronicmarketplaces, but interacts with such electronic marketplaces in orderto provide appropriate functionality, although in other embodiments someor all of the functionality of the routine could instead be embodieddirectly as part of an electronic marketplace.

The routine begins at step 410, where a communication submitted by asender user via an electronic marketplace is received. While notillustrated here, in some embodiments a confirmation message may beimmediately sent to the sender user, such as for use in testing whetherthe indicated communication address of the sender user is valid. In step415 the routine retrieves information for the user relevant toidentifying suspect communications, such as information about priorinteractions of the sender with the electronic marketplace, informationabout fraudulence thresholds or other assessment information to use toassess communications from the user, etc. In some embodiments, suchinformation may be specific to the user and/or to a group of users towhich the user belongs, while in other embodiments the same informationmay be used for all users. The routine then executes subroutine 420 toidentify whether the current communication is suspect. The routine thencontinues to step 425 to determine whether the subroutine returns anindication to delay a decision regarding whether the currentcommunication is suspect. If so, the routine continues to step 430 todelay for a specified period of time (e.g., 20 minutes). After the delayof step 430, the subroutine 420 is executed again to identify whetherthe current communication is suspect. While not illustrated here, insome embodiments a subsequent execution of the subroutine 420 may usedifferent assessment information, such as based on changes since a priorexecution, indications of undeliverability of a confirmation email thatmay reflect an invalid communication address for a sender user, and/orto alter how the subsequent assessment occurs. This loop continues untila delay is no longer indicated.

If a delay is not indicated at step 425, the routine continues to step435 to determine whether the communication was identified as beingsuspect. If so, the routine executes subroutine 440 to handle thesuspect communication. After handling the suspect communication, theroutine continues in step 445 to determine whether a modifiedcommunication was returned from subroutine 440, such as a communicationthat is modified to not be suspect. If so, or if the communication wasnot identified as suspect in step 435, the routine continues to step 450to designate addressing information for the communication. As describedin more detail elsewhere, in some embodiments a unique identifier issubstituted for the user's email address so that the intended recipientdoes not gain access to the sender's email address. After addressinginformation is designated, the routine continues to step 455 and thecommunication is forwarded to the intended recipient(s). An indicationof the communication is then stored as a prior communication in step 460for later use in identifying suspect communications and/or for otherpurposes, as discussed in more detail elsewhere.

Next, or if no communication was returned from subroutine 440, aresponse message is optionally sent to the user who submitted thecommunication in step 465. In embodiments in which a confirmationmessage was previously sent upon receipt of the communication, theresponse message may be in addition to the previously sent confirmationmessage, or may instead not be sent if a confirmation message waspreviously sent. In this illustrated embodiment, in the case of acommunication that is not identified as suspect, the response messagemay indicate that the communication has been forwarded to the intendedrecipient. In the case of a communication that was modified bysubroutine 440, the response message may or may not indicate that thecommunication was modified. While not illustrated here, in someembodiments such notification regarding a modified communication may bemade prior to forwarding the modified communication to the intendedrecipient(s), such as if the communication sender is allowed to approvethe modified communication. In the case of a communication that wasblocked by subroutine 440, the response message may indicate that thecommunication was not forwarded to the intended recipient, or theresponse message may falsely indicate that the communication wasforwarded. After step 465, the routine then continues to step 470 todetermine whether to continue. If so, the routine returns to step 405,and if not the routine continues to step 480 and ends.

FIG. 5 is a flow diagram of an embodiment of a Suspect CommunicationsIdentifier subroutine 420. The subroutine may be provided by, forexample, execution of an embodiment of the Suspect CommunicationsIdentifier component 342 of FIG. 3. In the illustrated embodiment ofFIG. 5, the subroutine determines whether a current communication issuspect based on the existence of certain keywords contained in thecommunication, the degree of similarity to prior communications, basedon information about the user who submitted the communication, and/orwhether the user's volume of communications submitted exceeds a relevantvolume threshold. In other embodiments, other factors could be used toidentify suspect communications, whether in addition to or instead ofthe factors shown in FIG. 5.

In the illustrated embodiment, the subroutine begins in step 505, wherean indication is received of the current communication, any informationfor the user relevant to identifying suspect communications, and one ormore assessment thresholds to use for determining whether thecommunication is suspect. The subroutine then continues to steps 510a-510 z to initiate assessment of the communication. In particular, inthe illustrated embodiment, multiple assessment tests are indicated asoccurring in parallel, such that completion of one or more of theassessment tests may be sufficient to determine that a communication issuspect or is not suspect even before other of the assessment tests arecompleted. In other embodiments, the assessment tests may instead beperformed in other manners, such as in a serial manner.

Step 510 a retrieves one or more predefined keywords to use as part ofone or more keyword-based fraud assessment tests, and in step 512 aapplies the keyword-based fraud assessment test(s) to the currentcommunication to search for the predefined keywords. In the illustratedembodiment, one or more keyword scores are further calculated for thecurrent communication based on the presence and/or absence of thekeywords, as previously discussed.

Step 510 b retrieves information about one or more prior communicationsto use as part of one or more similarity-based fraud assessment tests.In some embodiments, the communications retrieved will be limited to asubset of prior communications, such as communications sent by all usersduring a particular time period, or on a user-specific basis (e.g., allprior communication submitted by the user within a specified priorperiod of time, prior communications that satisfy certain specifiedcriteria such as naming the same intended recipient, etc.). After step510 b, the subroutine continues to step 512 b to calculate one or moresimilarity scores indicating the degree of similarity between thecurrent communication and the retrieved prior communications based onapplying the similarity-based fraud assessment test(s), as previouslydiscussed. In some embodiments, the similarity analysis will beperformed in a manner specific to the current user, while in otherembodiments may be performed in a consistent manner for all users orgroups of users. As one particular example, in some embodiments eachgroup of a specified number of words (e.g., 4) in a communication iscompared to the same-sized group of words in the communication to whichit is being compared.

Step 510 c uses information for the user retrieved in step 505 tocompute one or more user data scores. For example, the user data scoremay be indicative of how recently a user registered with themarketplace.

Step 510 z retrieves information relating to the volume of priorcommunications submitted by the user to use as part of one or morevolume-based fraud assessment tests. In some embodiments, acommunication will be identified as being from a particular user basedon information indicated by the user regarding their identity (e.g.,based on a “from” indicator for an email or other similar type of senderinformation for other types of communications; based on a previous loginor other user identification information supplied by the user; etc.). Inother embodiments, other information may be used to identify that acommunication is from a particular user or from the same user that sentanother prior communication, whether in addition to or instead of useridentity information, such as based on information that indicates howand/or from where a communication is sent (e.g., an IP address beingused by the sender when the communication is sent; a unique identifierassociated with an application being used by the sender when thecommunication is sent, such as a unique identifier stored for aparticular browser application using a browser cookie; etc.). In someembodiments, the volume information retrieved may be limited to thevolume of a subset of prior communications submitted by the user, suchas on a user-specific basis (e.g., all prior communication submitted bythe user within a specified prior period of time, prior communicationsthat satisfy certain specified criteria such as naming the same intendedrecipient, etc.). After volume information is retrieved in step 510 z,the subroutine continues to step 512 z to retrieve information about oneor more volume thresholds to use with the volume-based assessmenttest(s). In some embodiments, the same volume threshold may be used forall communications, regardless of the user that submitted thecommunication. In other embodiments, volume thresholds may differdepending upon one or more characteristics of the user submitting thecommunication and/or of the communication. After the volume threshold(s)are retrieved in step 512 z, the subroutine continues to step 514 z toapply the volume-based assessment test(s), as previously discussed, andto calculate one or more volume-based assessment scores based on whetherthe user's volume of communications exceeds the relevant volumethreshold(s).

After one or more of steps 512 a, 512 b, and 510 c, the subroutinecontinues to step 515 to generate an overall fraud assessment score forthe communication based at least in part on the received score(s) fromsteps 512 a, 512 b, and 510 c. For instance, the fraud assessment scoremay be based at least in part on a keyword score, similarity score,and/or user data score, with the various scores being combined invarious ways.

After steps 515 and 514 z, the subroutine continues to step 520 todetermine whether one or both of the calculated scores from steps 515and 514 z indicate a suspect communication. For example, step 520 maydetermine whether the fraud assessment score for the currentcommunication exceeds the appropriate fraudulence threshold received instep 505, and if so determine that the communication is suspect.Similarly, step 520 may determine whether the volume-based assessmentscore for the current communication exceeds the appropriate volumethreshold obtained in step 512 z, and if so determine that thecommunication is suspect. In other embodiments, one or more fraudassessment scores and one or more volume-based assessment scores (andoptionally other types of assessment scores) may be combined in variousways to determine a single overall assessment score, such as in aweighted manner. If it is determined in step 520 that the communicationis suspect, the subroutine continues to step 525 to return an indicationthat the current communication is suspect, and if not the subroutinecontinues to step 530. In step 530, the subroutine determines whether tohold the current communication for later additional assessment, such asbased on one or more of the assessment scores being above a minimalthreshold, based on one or more of the assessment scores otherwise beingsufficiently close to a corresponding threshold, and/or based on otherfactors (e.g., based on the communication being inconsistent with priorpatterns of activity by the communication sender, based on not havingrecently received other communications from the communication sender anddelaying the communication to see if it is the first of a large volumeof such communications, based on the communication being from a newlyregistered user, etc.). If step 530 determines to hold the currentcommunication for later additional assessment, an indication to delaythe communication is returned in step 535. Otherwise, step 540 returnsan indication that the communication is not suspect.

FIG. 6 is a flow diagram of an embodiment of a Suspect CommunicationsHandler subroutine 440. The subroutine may be provided by, for example,execution of an embodiment of the Suspect Communications Handlercomponent 344 of FIG. 3. In the illustrated embodiment, the subroutinedetermines zero or more appropriate actions to take with regard to asuspect communication. In the illustrated embodiment, the subroutineinteracts directly with a user to obtain information, although in otherembodiments such information could instead be obtained in other manners(e.g., by obtaining the information from an electronic marketplace withwhich the user was interacting to submit the communication, with theelectronic marketplace optionally interacting with the user).

In the illustrated embodiment, the subroutine begins in step 603, wherean indication is received of a suspect communication submitted by auser. In step 605, the subroutine then determines an action to takeregarding the suspect communication. In the illustrated embodiment, theactions include blocking the suspect communication and modifying thesuspect communication, although in other embodiments a variety ofadditional types of actions may be performed. The determination of whataction(s) to perform may be made in various ways, such as based at leastin part on how or why the communication was determined to be suspect(e.g., if the communication is amenable to modification that will removeinappropriate information) and/or on information about the communicationsender, as discussed elsewhere.

If step 605 determines to modify the contents of the suspectcommunication, the subroutine continues to step 615 to perform themodifications. Modifications may consist of adding, removing, orotherwise changing the contents of the suspect communication so that thecommunication is no longer suspect. The subroutine then continues tostep 620 to determine whether to allow the user who submitted thesuspect communication the opportunity to accept or reject themodifications. If so, the subroutine continues to step 625 to provideinformation to the sender user about the modifications and to query theuser for acceptance or rejection of the proposed modifications. Thesubroutine continues to step 630 to determine whether the user acceptedthe proposed modifications. If so, or if it was determined in step 620that the user should not be allowed the opportunity to accept or rejectthe modifications, the modified message is returned in step 635. On theother hand, if the user did not accept the proposed modifications instep 630 or if it was determined in step 605 that the suspectcommunication should be blocked, the subroutine continues to step 660 toblock the communication from being forwarded to the intendedrecipient(s). After blocking the suspect communication, the subroutinereturns in step 690.

If it is determined in step 605 that other indicated processing shouldbe performed relative to the suspect communication, the subroutineperforms the indicated processing in step 680, and then returns in step690.

Those skilled in the art will also appreciate that in some embodimentsthe functionality provided by the routines and subroutines discussedabove may be provided in alternative ways, such as being split amongmore routines or consolidated into fewer routines. Similarly, in someembodiments illustrated routines and subroutines may provide more orless functionality than is described, such as when other illustratedroutines or subroutines instead lack or include such functionalityrespectively, or when the amount of functionality that is provided isaltered. In addition, while various operations may be illustrated asbeing performed in a particular manner (e.g., in serial or in parallel,or synchronously or asynchronously) and/or in a particular order, thoseskilled in the art will appreciate that in other embodiments theoperations may be performed in other orders and in other manners. Thoseskilled in the art will also appreciate that the data structuresdiscussed above may be structured in different manners, such as byhaving a single data structure split into multiple data structures or byhaving multiple data structures consolidated into a single datastructure. Similarly, in some embodiments illustrated data structuresmay store more or less information than is described, such as when otherillustrated data structures instead lack or include such informationrespectively, or when the amount or types of information that is storedis altered. For instance, suspect prior communications may be stored ina separate database than non-suspect prior communications.

From the foregoing it will be appreciated that, although specificembodiments have been described herein for purposes of illustration,various modifications may be made without deviating from the spirit andscope of the invention. Accordingly, the invention is not limited exceptas by the appended claims and the elements recited therein. In addition,while certain aspects of the invention are presented below in certainclaim forms, the inventors contemplate the various aspects of theinvention in any available claim form. For example, while only someaspects of the invention may currently be recited as being embodied in acomputer-readable medium, other aspects may likewise be so embodied.

What is claimed is:
 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining, by one or more configured computing systems providing an electronic marketplace having a plurality of participants, a communication sent by a sender user of the electronic marketplace to an intended recipient user of the electronic marketplace, the sender user and the intended recipient user being participants in the electronic marketplace who are engaged in activities related to a transaction via the electronic marketplace that involves transfer of one or more items, and the communication being sent via the electronic marketplace and associated with the transaction; before providing the communication to the intended recipient user, applying, by the one or more configured computing systems providing the electronic marketplace; one or more fraud assessment tests to contents of the communication to assess one or more specified criteria regarding fraudulent activity by at least one of the sender user or the intended recipient user with respect to the transaction with which the communication is associated; determining, by the one or more configured computing systems providing the electronic marketplace and based on the applying of the one or more fraud assessment tests, that the fraudulent activity is identified for the transaction; and taking, by the one or more configured computing systems providing the electronic marketplace and in response to the determining, one or more automated actions to inhibit the fraudulent activity by the at least one of the sender user or the intended recipient user for the transaction.
 2. The method of claim 1 wherein the sender user is a potential seller of the one or more items via the electronic marketplace, wherein the intended recipient user is a potential buyer of the one or more items via the electronic marketplace, and wherein the contents of the communication include information for the intended recipient user from the sender user related to completing the transaction.
 3. The method of claim 2 wherein the identified fraudulent activity is by the sender user.
 4. The method of claim 1 wherein the intended recipient user is a potential seller of the one or more items via the electronic marketplace, wherein the sender user is a potential buyer of the one or more items via the electronic marketplace, and wherein the contents of the communication include information for the intended recipient user from the sender user related to completing the transaction.
 5. The method of claim 4 wherein the identified fraudulent activity is by the sender user.
 6. The method of claim 1 further comprising applying a volume assessment test to the communication that assesses a volume of prior communications previously sent by the sender user within a prior period of time.
 7. The method of claim 1 wherein the applying of the one or more fraud assessment tests to the contents of the communication includes applying a keyword assessment test that assesses presence of one or more predefined keywords in the contents of the communication.
 8. The method of claim 7 further comprising, before the applying of the keyword assessment test to the contents of the communication, identifying at least some of the predefined keywords based on presence of the at least some predefined keywords in prior communications that are identified as being fraudulent.
 9. The method of claim 1 further comprising applying a similarity assessment test that assesses one or more types of similarity between the communication and one or more prior communications.
 10. The method of claim 9 wherein the assessing of similarity types between the communication and prior communications includes assessing similarity in one or more of communication contents, identities of senders, identities of intended recipients, or times of day of sending communications.
 11. The method of claim 1 wherein the applying of the one or more fraud assessment tests to the contents of the communication includes applying an assessment test that assesses whether the contents of the communication include a disallowed type of contact information.
 12. The method of claim 1 wherein the applying of the one or more fraud assessment tests to the contents of the communication includes applying one or more assessment tests that each assesses at least one of whether the contents of the communication include a disallowed type of information or of whether the communication is in a disallowed form.
 13. The method of claim 1 wherein the determining that the fraudulent activity is identified for the transaction includes determining that a fraud assessment score determined from the fraud assessment tests exceeds a fraudulence threshold, the fraudulence threshold being selected for the communication from one of multiple fraudulence thresholds based at least in part on one or more of a type of participant in the electronic marketplace of the sender user or an identity of the sender user.
 14. The method of claim 1 wherein the taking of the one or more actions to inhibit the fraudulent activity by the at least one of the sender user or the intended recipient user includes blocking delivery of the communication to the intended recipient user, and sending a response message to the sender user that falsely indicates that the communication is forwarded to the intended recipient user.
 15. The method of claim 1 wherein the taking of the one or more actions to inhibit the fraudulent activity by the at least one of the sender user or the intended recipient user includes taking one or more actions to inhibit further use of the electronic marketplace by the at least one of the sender user or the intended recipient user.
 16. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored contents that cause a computing system associated with an intermediary organization to perform a method, the method comprising: obtaining, by the computing system, a communication sent via the intermediary organization by a sender user to an intended recipient user, the sender user and the intended recipient user being participants in the intermediary organization; assessing, by the computing system and before providing the communication to the intended recipient user, the communication, including applying one or more fraud assessment tests to contents of the communication to assess one or more specified criteria regarding fraudulent activities by at least one of the sender user or the intended recipient user, and including determining that the communication is suspect from results of the applying of the one or more fraud assessment tests; and in response to determining that the communication is suspect, taking, by the computing system, one or more actions to inhibit the possible fraudulent activities of the at least one of the sender user or the intended recipient user.
 17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16 wherein the intermediary organization is an electronic marketplace, and wherein the communication relates to activities of the sender user and the intended recipient user corresponding to a potential transaction via the electronic marketplace.
 18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17 wherein the computer-readable medium is a memory of the computing system, wherein the stored contents are software instructions that when executed program the computing system to perform the method, and wherein the applying of the one or more assessment tests includes applying to the communication multiple of a first assessment test that assesses a volume of prior communications previously sent by the sender user within a prior period of time, a second assessment test that assesses presence of one or more predefined keywords in the contents of the communication, a third assessment test that assesses one or more types of similarity between the communication and one or more prior communications, or a fourth assessment test that assesses whether the contents of the communication include a disallowed type of information.
 19. A configured computing system comprising: one or more hardware processors; and one or more memories with software instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more hardware processors, cause the computing system to provide functionality for an intermediary organization to at least: obtain a communication sent from a sender user to an intended recipient user via the intermediary organization, the sender user and the intended recipient user being participants in the intermediary organization; before providing the communication to the intended recipient user, assess the communication, including applying one or more assessment tests to contents of the communication from the sender user to the intended recipient user to assess one or more specified criteria regarding inappropriate activities by at least one of the sender user or the intended recipient user, and including determining that the communication is suspect from results of the applying of the one or more fraud assessment tests; in response to determining that the communication is suspect, take one or more automated actions to inhibit the inappropriate activities of the at least one of the sender user or the intended recipient user, wherein the intermediary organization is an electronic marketplace, wherein the communication relates to activities of the sender user and the intended recipient user corresponding to a potential transaction via the electronic marketplace that involves transfer of one or more items, and wherein the assessing of the communication includes assessing the contents of the communication in order to identify possibly fraudulent activities related to the potential transaction.
 20. The computing system of claim 19 wherein the software instructions are part of one or more components that provide functionality of the electronic marketplace, and wherein the applying of the one or more assessment tests includes applying a first assessment test to the communication that assesses a volume of prior communications previously sent by the sender user within a prior period of time, applying a second assessment test that assesses presence of one or more predefined keywords in the contents of the communication, applying a third assessment test that assesses one or more types of similarity between the communication and one or more prior communications, and applying a fourth assessment test that assesses whether the contents of the communication include a disallowed type of information. 